State of Maharashtra, Thru Inspector Exise Department Chikhali vs Dilip Vishvnath Fullare Advocate - Sungat VR — 373/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65 E. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th March 2026.

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHBU150011172021

Case disposed

Filing Number

958/2021

Filing Date

16-11-2021

Registration No

373/2025

Registration Date

16-11-2021

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Deulgaonraja

Judge

2-Jt.CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. J.M.F.C.

Decision Date

11th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65 E

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra, Thru Inspector Exise Department Chikhali

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Dilip Vishvnath Fullare Advocate - Sungat VR

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Jt.CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. J.M.F.C.

11-03-2026

Disposed

04-02-2026

Arguments

02-01-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

25-11-2025

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

30-10-2025

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The court acquitted the accused Dilip Vishnath Phulare of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949, Section 65(E) for illegal possession and sale of 41 bottles of country liquor (180 ml each). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as only one witness was examined, key witnesses including the panchas and investigating officer were not produced, and no chemical analysis report was submitted to establish the seized substance was genuine liquor, rendering the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused Dilip Vishnath Phulare of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949, Section 65(E) for illegal possession and sale of 41 bottles of country liquor (180 ml each). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as only one witness was examined, key witnesses including the panchas and investigating officer were not produced, and no chemical analysis report was submitted to establish the seized substance was genuine liquor, rendering the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Deulgaonraja All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case